100% of B-TOS architectures have cost increase under restrictive launch policy for a minimum cost decision maker Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Using Architecture Models to Understand Policy Impacts

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Using Architecture Models to Consider Uncertainty

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Changes in User Preferences Can be Quickly Understood

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Assessing Robustness and Adaptability Pareto front shows trade-off of accuracy and cost Determined by number of satellites in swarm Could add satellites to increase capability

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Questioning User Desires Best low-cost mission do only one job well More expensive, higher performance missions require more vehicles Higher-cost systems can do multiple missions Is the multiple mission idea a good one?

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Understanding Limiting Physical or Mission constraints

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE) ICE techniques from Caltech and JPL Linked analytical tools with human experts in the loop Very rapid design iterations Result is conceptual design at more detailed level than seen in architecture studies Allows understanding and exploration of design A reality check on the architecture studies - can the vehicles called for be built, on budget, with available technologies?

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ICE Process (CON with MATE) Directed Design Sessions allow very fast production of preliminary designs Traditionally, design to requirements Integration with MATE allows utility of designs to be Assessed real time

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ICE Result - XTOS Vehicle Early Designs had excessively large fuel tanks and bizarre shapes Showed limits of in architecture studies Vehicle optimized for best utility - maximum life at the lowest practical altitude coarse modeling done

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology ICE Result - XTOS Vehicle 1312 kg dry mass, kg wet mass Quite big (and therefore expensive); not very practical (?); Scale for all images: black cylinder is 1 meter long by 1 meter in diameter

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology SPACETUG Tug Family (designed in a day)

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Learning from the ICE results: Mass Distribution Comparison Low ISP fuel requires very large mass fraction to do mission power system, and structures and mechanisms dominating Other mass fractions reasonable, with manipulator system

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology More Than Mass Fractions

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Trade Space Check The GEO mission is near the “wall” for conventional propulsion

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology SPACETUG LEO Tender Family Tenders Orbit transfer vehicles that live in a restricted, highly populated set of orbits Do low Delta-V transfers, service, observation

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Tenders on the tradespace The Tender missions are feasible with conventional propulsion

Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium ©2002 Massachusetts Institute of Technology What you will learn Emerging capability to get from user needs to robust solutions quickly, while considering full range of options, and maintaining engineering excellence Trade space evaluation allows efficient quantitative assessment of system architectures given user needs State-of-the-art conceptual design processes refine selected architectures to vehicle preliminary designs Goal is the right system, with major issues understood (and major problems ironed out) entering detailed design